I've been exploring the possible sources of innovative thinking in law firms. Wondering where the good ideas come from. . . .why some firms can make amazing things happen. . . what causes and supports the challenge of change in an inhospitable environment. Here's one possibility -- and why in some cases it doesn't work.
On the staff side of things, in many instances, the marketing director or CMO is best situated to drive innovation in a law firm. It's a combination of things.
- By nature, a good marketing person is creative and driven to avoid precedent -- it is his job, after all, to help a law firm differentiate, not conform.
- Strong marketing conversations almost always touch on product development or packaging of services. Both fertile breeding grounds for new thinking.
- Unlike nearly all other staff positions, the marketing executive works shoulder to shoulder with the firm's leading decision-makers. . . . working on the promotion, characterization and amplification of the very legal work they do. Speaking truth to power on behalf of the clients' needs and market trends.
- No one keeps an eagle eye on the competition like a CMO driven to help her firm compete.
- Nearly every job description or hire order for a law firm marketing executive contains language like, "strong leadership skills," or "creative and innovative," or "capable of leading change with and through firm leaders" and the ever popular "catalyst for change."
At the same time -- or, actually, because of this charge to innovate - the marketing function is also the clearest and biggest target when it comes to resistance. Few people like to be challenged to think differently, even fewer if they happen to be lawyers. A marketing director talking about "better, faster, cheaper" in the context of the marketplace can - if not careful - be seen by those who are quite satisfied that what they're doing is the very best, thank you very much, as an irritant at best and an in-firm terrorist at most extreme.
Ouch! It takes an extremely self-confident -- perhaps pathologically so? - person to throw their "really great ideas" into the maw of criticism time and time again.
So where does this wildly creative and innovative thinker turn when this situation flares? When the CMO feels beat down and devalued by the resistance to his ideas - the very ideas for which she's paid the big bucks by the thinkers in the firm who know that fresh ideas are needed? When the firm's leadership shuts him out for fear of criticism of themselves? Where do you turn to salve your wounds and renew your energy to try again?
Easy answer: Elsewhere.
We've all seen it happen. A law firm hires a "water walking" CMO, pays so much money it hits the internal grapevine like a bomb and then, writing a blank check for great and new stuff to happen, steps back. Two to three years later, the CMO is:
- Spending more time building her own credentials than promoting the firm,
- Appearing in articles, pod-casts and interviews as an expert at least as frequently as the firm's lawyers,
- Cranking up firm travel expenses on the speakers circuit,
- Being photographed with movers and shakers,
- Taking. . . .mmm. . . . perhaps a little too much credit for the firm's success, and
- Launching their own independent business activities on the side.
Then begins the doom loop. Talk in the hallways focuses on "What does she do, anyway?" and "Who does he think he is?" While firm leadership naively scratches their collective head about the fact that it seems the exterior world values their CMO more than they do.
The CMO starts to itch. Her willingness to invest time (personal as well as the firm's) in outside activities brings greater and greater industry recognition - a situation so out of kilter with the internal negativity it becomes intolerable. Headhunters start to call.
Oh, did I mention few CMOs enjoy the kind of coaching from a firm leader playing the supervisor or collaborator role that would help dodge or at least pull out of this nose dive? Meanwhile, the important driving force for effective business innovation within the firm is essentially neutralized.
Whose fault is this? Oh, it's different in every case. But in all likelihood, it's shared:
- The CMO has failed to bring the necessary skills and patience to the table to provoke new thinking AND enable it through firm leadership to become a reality. The firm's reality. Great ideas just aren't enough for success in an environment with no hierarchy and a passion for precedent. "Telling" isn't all it takes to cause great change. You've got to "work it," build confidence in your capabilities, build alliances, demonstrate small successes if that's what it takes to get to the big ones.
- Firm leadership has been unrealistic about what it takes for a creative person to succeed in their firm and have been too focused on "not getting anything negative on themselves" instead of digging in and taking risks to ensure success for the program into which they originally invested so much of the firm's money. Too much managing partner time is spent neutralizing partners' complaints instead of working to improve a bad situation.
As in all situations, there are extremes. Some marketing executives are untalented self-promoting opportunists. Some law firms are poorly managed, short-sighted and foolish in how they spend their money and their people.
But in the end, the possibility of a great catalyst and investment for innovation. . . .for improvement. . . . for energy and enthusiasm . .. and for firm success and profitability. . . is spent. And if everyone involved is lucky, one of those headhunter calls will result in a chance to try again.
Perhaps next time we'll all be a bit smarter.
Recent Comments